Cérémé, an impartial suppose tank, requires an pressing strategic reorientation, based mostly on rational, economically viable and ecologically environment friendly selections, to ensure France’s vitality future. Explanations and interview with Bruno Ladsous, director and president of the Vent de Colère federation.
A virulent article revealed in Le Figaro on July 3 by three right-wing figures – Bruno Retailleau, François-Xavier Bellamy and Julien Aubert – has thrown a spanner within the works of the parliamentary debate on France’s vitality coverage, as we wrote. In it, the authors name for an finish to public subsidies for wind energy and photovoltaics, which they deem too expensive, unreliable and dangerous to the surroundings. This stance, in favor of a large return to nuclear energy, instantly rekindled tensions throughout the Republicans (LR) and precipitated a stir throughout the authorities.
Alerting public opinion and politicians
Cérémé strongly criticizes France’s present vitality coverage, which is predicated on a “simultaneous vitality coverage”, i.e. the simultaneous improvement of nuclear energy and intermittent renewable energies (wind and solar energy). A distinct coverage is feasible for 2035-2050. The Cercle d’Étude Réalités Écologiques et Mix Énergétique (Cérémé), goals to “alert public opinion and political leaders to the basic points related to the vitality combine technique of France and the European Union.”
It asks, for instance, “How many French individuals know that wind and solar energy have doubled their electrical energy payments over the previous ten years?” Indeed, the suppose tank notes that:
- Wind and solar energy have doubled French electrical energy payments in ten years.
- The Programmation Pluriannuelle de l’Énergie (PPE 3) continues alongside this path, regardless of its excessive price and vitality inefficiency
- France is failing to conduct a rational and democratic debate on its vitality technique.
Logically, Cérémé proposes abandoning large-scale wind and solar energy, and relying as a substitute on an vitality combine based mostly on nuclear, hydraulic and thermal renewable energies (biomass, geothermal, and so forth.). He additionally proposes investing in vitality effectivity in key sectors: trade, housing, transport and the service sector.
A protracted-term imaginative and prescient
This long-term imaginative and prescient of vitality coverage has many benefits, in line with Cérémé:
- Estimated financial savings of 400 billion euros by 2050.
- Greater vitality sovereignty.
- Accelerated decarbonization of probably the most polluting sectors.
- Reduced dependence on overseas industries and land rentiers.
Cérémé subsequently requires an pressing strategic reorientation, based mostly on rational, economically viable and ecologically environment friendly selections, to ensure France’s vitality future.
Interview with Bruno Ladsous, Cérémé Board member and President of the Vent de Colère federation.
Cérémé, of which you might be one of many administrators, claims that intermittent, non-controllable renewable energies – wind and photo voltaic – have precipitated French electrical energy payments to double in twelve years. How do you clarify this?
Basically, the funding prices of those energies, which aren’t very considerable within the Prime Minister’s sense of the time period, are excessive for restricted lifespans and common load elements, in contrast with energies which are really considerable as a result of they’ve an extended lifespan and excessive availability charges, equivalent to nuclear and hydro.
To this have to be added the excessive connection prices of this diffuse electrical energy, and the prices of reinforcing the networks (transformers, and so forth.) related to electrical energy produced removed from the facilities of consumption. These prices are discreetly included in our invoice by way of what is named TURPE.
Then there are the system prices ensuing from their intermittency, and eventually their calamitous environmental prices.
The downside in France is that the general public authorities don’t need to take into consideration the total price of manufacturing, all the pieces included. Yet that is what the senators known as for of their vote on July 8, together with the price of subsidies.
This improve within the value of electrical energy for households additionally applies to companies, in various proportions relying on the character of their contracts. It is ruining what for 40 years has been France’s solely actual benefit in international competitors: the worth of its electrical energy.
Cérémé has revealed an econometric research of three nations (Germany, Denmark, France) over the interval 1990 to 2020, which demonstrates a big causal hyperlink between the rise in wind and solar energy capability on the one hand, and the inflation-adjusted value of electrical energy (households) on the opposite.
Despite a moratorium voted by the French National Assembly, then rejected on June 23, the Pluriannual Energy Program (PPE 3) continues on this course, regardless of its excessive price and vitality inefficiency. As a Cérémé board member and president of the Fédération Vent de Colère, do you perceive the protests throughout France towards the event of onshore and offshore wind energy?
The French have lengthy understood that wind and solar energy are usually not considerable, that they not decarbonize an electrical energy combine that has been largely decarbonized in France because the closure of oil and coal-fired energy crops between 2015 and 2019 (1), that at peak demand in winter in windless and sunless situations they don’t seem to be out there, and that they’re answerable for doubling the worth of electrical energy in 12 years.
They know that every single day in France, nuclear electrical energy – the lowest-carbon electrical energy out there – is being changed by a way more carbon-intensive type of electrical energy, which advantages from an exorbitant benefit: precedence injection into the grid, often called nuclear modulation.
Above all, the French are nonetheless discovering the environmental catastrophe attributable to these machines, which spoil the attractiveness of their areas: the destruction of the panorama, historical past and recollections, noise and visible nuisance, notably at night time, the large toll taken on pure areas and flying species, and the destruction of areas of human habitat.
Yet the fantastic thing about the world is important. It’s not only a query of aesthetics, as a result of magnificence encompasses historical past, schooling, artwork and tradition, and is rooted in values shared by society. It brings a way of satisfaction, stability and concord between the entire and its components.
It is profoundly incultured to scale back the panorama to a spot of vitality manufacturing. The destruction, within the identify of a verdigris ideology, of magnificence and of all the pieces that offers that means to existence within the countryside or on our seafronts, this alone explains the rising opposition that’s manifesting itself throughout France. The Fédération Vent de Colère helps them, offering associations with the instruments and companies they want.
These law-abiding residents’ protests are usually not violent, however a tragedy can by no means be dominated out, as the general public authorities proceed to twist the regulation to the advantage of this trade, in complete disregard of the Charter of the Environment. They’d higher be careful.
Isn’t our vitality coverage too depending on Brussels?
Energy is a shared competence between the European Union and its member states. That’s why we have to implement the three rules of subsidiarity, proportionality and technological neutrality, specifically by making use of Article 5 of the EU Treaty.
Respect for these rules is important, as a result of it’s unacceptable for France’s carbon footprint to be worsened by importing carbon-intensive electrical energy from Germany.
But successive French governments proceed to bow to the implausible calls for of the German-led European Commission. In actuality, we’re paying the worth for our governments’ continual incapability to get out of price range deficits.
Wind and solar energy are good for Germany, which depends on fuel and coal-fired energy stations: they assist to decarbonize the nation within the absence of nuclear energy. It’s out of weak point that we settle for their erratic carbon surpluses on an nearly every day foundation, placing us in danger by way of system safety.
Finally, the general public authorities are rigorously hiding a key piece of data underneath the carpet (2): by 2024, renewable energies, together with virtuous hydropower, will cowl 35% of our home electrical energy consumption, near the 2030 EU goal to which France has subscribed (40%). Better nonetheless, if we take into consideration the 35 GW of wind and solar energy tasks approved however not but related to the grid, nonetheless missed by the Ministry, the share of renewable energies will attain 43% by 2030.
As for the whole vitality combine (together with warmth, biogas, biofuels, and so forth.), renewables already account for 25% and will attain 48% by 2030, effectively above the 42.5% goal set by the RED III directive.
Current mission momentum is subsequently enough to fulfill EU targets, and there’s no have to put money into new intermittent vitality capability.
In a couple of phrases, how can we assure the French considerable, low-cost, low-carbon vitality?
We have to suppose by way of the whole vitality combine, which incorporates thermal renewable energies and biofuels, as a result of the electrification of vitality makes use of just isn’t at all times the most effective resolution by way of high quality and value.
As far because the electrical energy combine is worried, the essential basis France wants is the one which has enabled it to reside comfortably for 40 years, being, together with the northern nations, probably the most virtuous European nation by way of low-carbon emissions and costs.
We should subsequently put money into nuclear energy, guaranteeing that present reactors are repowered and prolonged to 70 or 80 years, in compliance with security laws. We additionally have to put money into hydropower, notably pumped storage energy stations (STEP).
At the tip of their helpful lives, we have to regularly rid our countryside and coasts of the wind generators that muddle and denature them. As for solar energy, it must be reserved, underneath stricter environmental situations, for roofs and land that has already been artificially developed and can’t be renaturalized.
What France wants, then, is a situation just like the one proposed by Cérémé (3): one which respects the surroundings and the approach to life of rural dwellers.
At the very least, all of the options to the expensive and damaging PPE 3 decree have to be studied, by an authority impartial of a ministry that has misplaced the boldness of the French individuals via its astonishing bias in favor of wind and solar energy, to the detriment of our nation’s basic pursuits.
